Putin boasts new strategic weapons will make US missile defense “useless”

Enlarge/ Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the Federal Assembly at Moscow's Manezh exhibition centre on March 01, 2018. He announced a plethora of new strategic weapons that challenge the US' ballistic missile defenses.

Further Reading

The weapons, Putin said, were a direct response to the US' withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its continued development of ballistic missile defenses—which the Russian government has argued undermine the strategic deterrent value of Russia's existing nuclear force. "No one has listened to us," said Putin. "Listen to us now."

A little something extra for the fallout

Putin claimed that the cruise missile's miniaturized nuclear power plant had been successfully tested last fall and that, when built, the weapon would have a "practically unlimited" range. An animation showed a computer-generated image of the weapon flying close to the ground, following terrain contours, flying over mountains, and out to sea, avoiding seaborne air defense radars on its way to a virtual target. A similar animation showed nuclear-powered torpedoes launched from a submarine, traveling "intercontinental" distances, and striking a US aircraft carrier and exploding near a shore facility. This was the first official public announcement of both weapons.

Flying reactors have been attempted in the past, but for obvious reasons they've never been deployed—while it has been demonstrated that a nuclear reactor could effectively power a turboprop or turbojet engine, the risk and cost of a flying nuclear aircraft are prohibitive, to say the least. Then there's the weight of the reactor (plus shielding to protect crew from dying before getting to a target, in the case of nuclear aircraft) and the accompanying loss of payload capacity. Russia conducted airborne reactor tests in the 1960s with the Tupolev Tu-119 "Nuclear Flying Laboratory" but abandoned development. The US tested airborne reactors and developed nuclear aircraft engines in the 1950s―including a nuclear ramjet engine for the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (SLAM) that was tested on the ground but never flew.

Putin claimed the reactors used in the sub-drone and cruise missile were 1/100th the size of current nuclear sub reactors. That's still a fairly massive piece of hardware to put in a torpedo or cruise missile.

But wait, that’s not all

The third weapon, called Avangard, is a hypersonic maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV), described by Putin as being capable of high-speed radical evasive maneuvers while in flight and of delivering its warheads at over 20 times the speed of sound. It would strike, Putin said, "like a meteorite, like a fireball."

The Avangard is probably what has previously been called "Objekt 4202," also known as the YU-71, or the Aeroballistic Hypersonic Warhead. Unlike a traditional ICBM, the Avangard would get its boost from the new massive Sarmat ballistic missile and then skip along the top of the edge of the Earth's atmosphere under its own control and could maneuver around potential intercept points using its control surfaces as well as ramjet engines. It would be launched aboard a ballistic missile―the new Sarmat missile, now in testing, has enough range that it could be routed over the South Pole from Russia and strike targets in the US. A video for the Sarmat showed warheads from a missile launched on such a route falling over Florida—presumably targeting Mar-a-Lago.

The Sarmat itself is nearly ready for deployment. The ICBM is part of Russia's broad modernization of its nuclear forces, a modernization that hasn't just focused on weapons capable of striking the US. And so is another weapon Putin mentioned, the "Dagger:" an air-launched, tactical, nuclear-capable weapon intended to strike targets such as US Navy aircraft carriers while flying at Mach 10 to evade air defense systems on accompanying Aegis destroyers.

Some of Russia's modernization steps have skirted or potentially outright violated a different treaty with the US: the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed by the Soviet Union and United States in 1987. Russia has built new nuclear-capable land-based cruise missile systems that the US argues are in violation of INF. And over the past five years, as part of its rapid modernization, the Russian Navy has expanded its strategic capabilities, including one that's essentially a thumbing of the nose at the INF's fine print.

In addition to new Borey-A ballistic missile submarines, Russia has built the Buyan-M class of "missile corvettes," small ships that can carry nuclear cruise missiles. The Buyan-M is small enough that it is capable of launching missiles not just at sea, but inland from Russia's rivers or the Moscow Canal system, allowing a dodge around the terms of the INF Treaty.

A Buyan-M class corvette.

According to a recent interview with Russian Navy Chief Admiral Vladimir Korolev in the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), there are five Borey-A ballistic missile submarines in various stages of construction right now, in addition to three that were built within the last five years. And six Yasen-class submarines capable of carrying up to 40 land-attack cruise missiles are also under construction.

The nuclear-powered cruise missile gap

The US government and the Department of Defense's Missile Defense Agency have argued that the ballistic missile defenses the US has built in Europe (in the form of Aegis Ashore), at sea (aboard Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyers and cruisers), and at home (the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptor) are really focused on countries such as Iran and North Korea—and not Russia or China.

But both Russia and China have objected heavily to US missile defense programs as they've crept closer to their respective homelands. And Russia's response, in a purely nuclear deterrence game theory way, is somewhat rational: if the US government felt that it could shoot down at least some inbound missiles from Russia, a certain US leader might become emboldened and believe that a nuclear war was winnable.

However, Russia's nuclear cruise and torpedo weapons are, from an arms control standpoint, not exactly deterrent-focused weapons. They're potentially first-strike weapons, capable of evading detection until the moment they strike. As fast as they are, they require long transit times and could be conceivably deployed in "loiter" mode, hanging out somewhere on station while simply awaiting a signal to strike.

As far as the Avangard goes, Russia is not alone. The US and China also have hypersonic weapons in development. China has been testing its Hypersonic Glide Vehicle since 2014, and the Chinese military has called it a "carrier killer" accurate enough to strike a ship at sea.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

How much does it even matter? As already mentioned in the article, our current defenses are already practically useless against a barrage from a nation like Russia or China. Even if used for a successful and undetected first strike, I would have to assume the US has some sort of dead man's switch-like plan in place.

And as for psychologically influencing Our Dear Leader of the Free World? Ha!

Yeah, I'm sure lobbing nuclear-powered cruise missiles at targets, pulverizing the internal reactor and spreading the debris and dust all over the targets' areas, will be well received by the nations of the world if they are stupid and/or crazy enough to actually use them.

How about putting that miniaturization technology to good use and branching off to make air transit not use so much fossil fuel? Or does Russia's breakthrough consist of "No shielding for the reactors, so God help the technicians working on, loading, etc. these things."

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

I think he's just trying to goad Trump into pushing harder to fulfill his fantasy of a giant military parade, further undermining faith in American institutions by highlighting that we're just inches away from having a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

Well, Russia has invaded Georgia and the Ukraine. But Estonia, for example, is a member of NATO. Russia couldn't get away with invading it without starting World War III. The better Russian weapon systems are, the more chance there is that Russia could invade Estonia without immediate nuclear retaliation from the U.S.; after all, Americans wouldn't think a small far-away country is important enough to risk their cities and their own lives over.

Hence, NATO collapses, having no more credibility.

I could see that as being a very desirable scenario from Putin's point of view. I could see him as willing to risk a global thermonuclear war in order to considerably increase Russia's ability to intimidate its neighbors.

Yeah, I'm sure lobbing nuclear-powered cruise missiles at targets, pulverizing the internal reactor and spreading the debris and dust all over the targets' areas, will be well received by the nations of the world if they are stupid and/or crazy enough to actually use them.

How about putting that miniaturization technology to good use and branching off to make air transit not use so much fossil fuel? Or does Russia's breakthrough consist of "No shielding for the reactors, so God help the technicians working on, loading, etc. these things."

I don't think the public's ready for ballistic transport yet.

Actually, this was proposed - by Russia, I recall - following the collapse of the USSR as a means of lobbing relief supplies into disaster areas quickly, making use of their retiring ICBM fleet. There were some obvious problems involving early warning systems, though.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

If there is any build up it needs to be an international coalition. We should never unilaterally put our military any closer to them than we would accept them being close to us.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

I think he's just trying to goad Trump into pushing harder to fulfill his fantasy of a giant military parade, further undermining faith in American institutions by highlighting that we're just inches away from having a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office.

Pssst. We do have a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office. It's the rest of the system that hasn't quite gotten there yet.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

I think he's just trying to goad Trump into pushing harder to fulfill his fantasy of a giant military parade, further undermining faith in American institutions by highlighting that we're just inches away from having a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office.

Pssst. We do have a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office. It's the rest of the system that hasn't quite gotten there yet.

Most of this doesn't matter much, there's already enough nukes in the US, Russia, and China to destroy the world several times over. And it's been clear that missile defense is a bit of an expensive joke against that kind of arsenal. But it is a bit worrisome that Russia focuses so heavily on first-strike weapons.

Also, I'm not clear on how a nuclear torpedo-drone capable of doing 100 knots would be any more silent or difficult to detect than a nuclear sub. Is it because it can be at greater depths?

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

If there is any build up it needs to be an international coalition. We should never unilaterally put our military any closer to them than we would accept them being close to us.

Does this mean that anti-ballistic-missile systems have actually progressed beyond the optimistic-probable-snake-oil stage? We've certainly wanted them since Ronnie was pushing Star Wars; but I don't remember too many unrigged demos making them seem like something ready for prime time.

Yeah, I'm sure lobbing nuclear-powered cruise missiles at targets, pulverizing the internal reactor and spreading the debris and dust all over the targets' areas, will be well received by the nations of the world if they are stupid and/or crazy enough to actually use them.

How about putting that miniaturization technology to good use and branching off to make air transit not use so much fossil fuel? Or does Russia's breakthrough consist of "No shielding for the reactors, so God help the technicians working on, loading, etc. these things."

Well the missiles reactors could be shielded whilst at a silo. No reason not to have cladding that can be removed before launch. Most people would be far enough away from a chemical launch that a non-shielded nuclear powered weapon would have a similar safety setup.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

First, Russia has little desire to be fair about anything.

The problem with any gambit is understanding what the various ploys mean.

We know they have been pushing for several hundred kph with torps, flashing water to steam with a forward pointing laser. Never in actual operation, that we know of.

But, if ONE Russian scientist group got a 1/100th or less nuke plant going then all of these become possible. Here in the States we would have thousands protesting the development, leaks, nuke panic reactions and god knows what.

Nobody is Russia is stupid enough to do that. Or stupid long enough to matter. The grave doesn't care how loudly they cried when they died. It's just worms and dirt in the end.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

Because Trump. This is what happens when you destabilize all relations around the world. Even those with our enemies. Pulling out of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty this is a direct result. Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement will do the same thing but long term.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

I think he's just trying to goad Trump into pushing harder to fulfill his fantasy of a giant military parade, further undermining faith in American institutions by highlighting that we're just inches away from having a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office.

Pssst. We do have a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office. It's the rest of the system that hasn't quite gotten there yet.

If it's any consolation we have a Third World Healthcare system, especially if you compare outcomes to First World countries.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

First, Russia has little desire to be fair about anything.

The problem with any gambit is understanding what the various ploys mean.

We know they have been pushing for several hundred kph with torps, flashing water to steam with a forward pointing laser. Never in actual operation, that we know of.

But, if ONE Russian scientist group got a 1/100th or less nuke plant going then all of these become possible. Here in the States we would have thousands protesting the development, leaks, nuke panic reactions and god knows what.

Nobody is Russia is stupid enough to do that. Or stupid long enough to matter. The grave doesn't care how loudly they cried when they died. It's just worms and dirt in the end.

My point is that Russia's own actions caused the buildup of NATO troops,. I have no illusions about Russia trying to play fair.

Anyone got any idea how Russia can afford all these weapons programmes?

Not just the ones announced today, but - for instance, nine missile submarines under construction at the same time. It's economy is tiny by comparison with the US and China, it's smaller than Italy or Australis for goodness sake.

Has Russia discovered a way to do defence on the cheap (unlikely in a land of rampant corruption)? Or is this all fiction and Potemkin villages?